KAMLAKAR PUNDALIK MAHAJAN HUF THROUGH ITS KARTA KAMLAKAR PUNDALIK MAHAJAN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/5412/2024HC BombayHCBM03019213202419 July 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable because it was not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as mandated by the scheme framed under Section 151A of the Act. The Court relied on its previous judgment in WP No. 1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others), which had ruled that such notices, if not issued by the FAO, are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. Any further demand notice or penalty notice issued in furtherance of this invalid notice would also not survive and were consequently set aside. All contentions of both sides, except those covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment and those available in a proceeding initiated by the FAO, were left open.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kamlakar Pundalik Mahajan HUF, through its Karta Kamlakar Pundalik Mahajan, filed a writ petition challenging a notice. The primary contention was that the notice, presumably under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required by the scheme framed under Section 151A of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another, contested this. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid if it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in contravention of the scheme framed under Section 151A of the Act? Assessee's contention: The notice could only have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in terms of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issuance by the JAO renders it unsustainable. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 974y wp5412o24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 974 WRIT PETITION NO. 5412 OF 2024 KAMLAKAR PUNDALIK MAHAJAN HUF THROUGH ITS KARTA KAMLAKAR PUNDALIK MAHAJAN VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER ... Shri Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ Department. ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 19th July, 2024 Per Court :-

1.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Several issues have been raised in this Petition, inter alia, that the impugned notice could not have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and which could have been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 2024:BHC-AUG:15584-DB

*2* 974y wp5412o24

2.

The learned Advocates for the respective sides submit that the judgment dated 03.05.2024, delivered at the Principal Seat in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies not in accordance with the scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the view taken in Hexaware Technologies (supra), would be applicable to this case.

4.

In view of the above and considering the conclusions drawn in Hexaware Technologies (supra), the notice issued u/s 148 would be unsustainable. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. If any further demand notice or penalty notice in furtherance thereof, would also not survive and stands set aside.

*3* 974y wp5412o24

5.

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. Needless to state, all the contentions of both the sides, save and except, those which are covered by the Hexaware Technologies (supra), and which are available to the parties in a proceeding, which can be initiated by the FAO under the scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, are left open. kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

More judgments on Section 151A

All 862 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →